For Players Who Bought Crysis 2 (All platforms)

[vlad321]

themanwithnoname said:

vlad321 said:

themanwithnoname said:

vlad321 said:

yo_john117 said:

vlad321 said:

Machiavellian said:

I always have a problem with people stating if a game is linear its bad.  A more open game doesn't make a game better.  A lot of open games includng the first Crysis bored a lot of people because you had all of this openess but no focus.  For some people this is a better design but it doesn't make it a better design for everyone and should not be stated as fact.  Crytek already stated that they made the game more linear because if you want to tell a story you need tighter controls of teh environment, where the player is and what is happening then just dropping them into a situation and say find your way.

I'm fairly sure that movies are made to tell a guided visual story and games are made to be played through.

Now whether you [refer linear or not is another debate. However, as far as level design goes, linear means shitty level design. If you like it more, more power to you.

BS no it doesn't

Yes, it very much does. It is much simpler to come up with a damn line, than an intecrately interwined level with places to explore, shortcuts, and alternate routes.

Who gives a toss? The better level design is the one that's more fun. If the "intricately intertwined" level is more boring to play through, why should I care that it took longer to design? Your constant use of hyperbole also doesn't help your arguements much either.

And your lack of reading makes your arguments laughably bad. If you notice I specifically said that if you like linear levels, more power to you, I don't give a damn. It's just that linear levels are shitty level design.

I guess I'm not going to get a response to why they're "shitty" level design, am I? You're just going to keep throwing it out there without saying why it is (I guess you implied earlier because it's easier to make than "intricately intertwined levels" but that still doesn't make logical sense). I might as well be talking to a wall at this point or perhaps I just need to stop looking for a sound argument where there's none to be found.

You neither asked for an explanation, nor implied you wanted one. All brought up is enjoying a linear level, which I had already addressed. It seems you can't even read your own arguments. You should look into that.

But let's humor you. Which part of linearity is good level design? Is it the cinematics, which have jack shit with the level design? Or is it the hand-holding, which also has jack shit to do with the design of the level? Maybe it's the heavily scripted events? Or the fact that there is only one general way through a linear level and every time you go through a level it is more or less the exact same, like a movie? Which of those exactly have anything to do with good level design, and not with shitty moviemaking?

It is skilless to make a level where you go from A to B to C, where the player will be greated by the exact same crap every time he goes through the level, and doesn't even have A1, A2, A3, to explore between A and B. A fucking dumbass can come up with a progression of events, and all it takes is a failure of a director that calls himself a game designer to populate it with cinematics and scripted sequences.  Hell, I was doing that shit when I was 8 and was lying to my friends how I fought off ninjas next to Robocop. 

On the other hand it takes far more craft and ability to create a level with multiple approaches, possibly different endings, such that a no playthrough is the same as a previous one for more than 3 playthroughs. That is good level design.

As I said, I don't give a shit what anyone likes, but linear levels are shitty level design.